Silentpony:Honestly I wouldn't hold your breath on Hilary not running again. One thing I will give her, she never knows when to quit.

Hillary's not going to run again. She's a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

I expect her to lurk until 2020 and then pop up to give out endorsements and raise money, which is the primary role of a failed presidential candidate. After that? She's 70; she'll write a couple more memoirs, give some speeches overseas, walk her dogs and die.

Silentpony:He'll just tweet out "Terrible Democrats trying to steal this country, want me impeached. Most corrupt Congress in history. Not going anywhere. You and what army, Congress? #MAGA"

Kwak:https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567So does Russia attempting to wage germ warfare and encourage infectious outbreaks on a populace count as an act of war, and therefore make Trump legally and not just morally a traitor?

Ehh...that's not biological warfare. Not by the definitions of international law.

What Russia is doing is a new type of state conflict; one fought over a shared cyberspace, with the objective being control of the factual consensus of users within that cyberspace. That's some serious shit with serious implications, like I've probably stated a half-dozen times in this thread over the past months.

But unless they're actually causing a viral outbreak - say, by telling bored housewives in Georgia that America's last remaining sample of smallpox is secretly a youth serum that the government keeps for Hillary Clinton and the deep state - then it's not biological warfare. What they're doing right now is lying to people about the effectiveness of vaccines. That's hella bad, but discrediting a proven solution to a health threat is not necessarily the same as causing a health threat.

The Russians didn't start the anti-vaxxer movement, by the way. Like a lot of the hot topics that Russian troll farms exploit, it was an existing piece of flamebait that they discovered and decided to propagate. They use basically any culture war topic you care to name; vaccinations, gun control, Black Lives Matter, Islam, abortion, same-sex marriage, literally anything. They've even been caught organising both sides of a rally in Texas. I mean, that's the world we're in.

ObsidianJones:But Trump won't be around forever. And then Republicans will have to justify this election, their actions, and everything they allowed under Trump.

The Republicans haven't had to justify anything since Obama's first days in office when they made it their agenda to oppose everything he did, and possibly even before that point - Obama's election was where they were most blatant about their shenanigans. What makes you think they'll have to - or even try to - justify anything they've let happen now?

bastardofmelbourne:....discrediting a proven solution to a health threat is not necessarily the same as causing a health threat.

Ehh, I guess. But I prefer my hyperbole.

(but honestly, this seems like a specially ingenious way to destroy a population, using their own stupidity and ego against them so they do the job for you. Which really has been the whole point of cyber/psychological warfare all along. This just seems a particularly perfect demonstration of the principle.)

bastardofmelbourne:....discrediting a proven solution to a health threat is not necessarily the same as causing a health threat.

Ehh, I guess. But I prefer my hyperbole.

Considering it was Russia who has been hacking all the Hospitals, there is the very real danger of them shutting down all major hospital systems globally in the event of a biological or Chemical threat. They believe the same Russian hacker groups responsiblefor hacking the Department of Defense, the US electrical Grid and the DNC that were responsible for the Hospital hacks so there is some serious concern here to what they may be capable of in the event of a serious outbreak.

Whelp apparently Trump money guy just flipped, with the mid term coming up it seems like most investigation are gearing up to produce some results just before it begins. Feel like something big will happen in the next few weeks.

What Russia is doing is a new type of state conflict; one fought over a shared cyberspace, with the objective being control of the factual consensus of users within that cyberspace. That's some serious shit with serious implications, like I've probably stated a half-dozen times in this thread over the past months.

Yanks have been doing that to us for the past decade with the likes of Iona. This isn't as new as you'd think.

Meiam:Whelp apparently Trump money guy just flipped, with the mid term coming up it seems like most investigation are gearing up to produce some results just before it begins. Feel like something big will happen in the next few weeks.

Meiam:He has a bunch of kids, each just a dumb as he is, what's stopping the cult from just following them after him? Or you could have the infowar crazy guy. I mean even the mooch was spoken of highly by the cult. Look at scientology, the head guy died a long time ago and there's still alive and well.

Also don't forget that when president go for re-election: 1)they've historically almost always won there second round and 2) Turnout is always lower (2012 saw much lower turnout than 2008 and so on) which help republican since they have small number of dedicated voter versus democrat who rely on large number of apathetic one. Both of these massively help Trump in 2020. And look at Georgia this election cycle if you want an idea what's in store for 2020, republican are closing down voting booth in democrat district. There's going to be a lot of talk of voter ID too since the SCOTUS isn't going to strike those down now.

The people democrat have incensed were going to vote for them anyway. In fact that might actually be the worse thing to happen to democrat, now the far left is asking for democrat to be ideologically pure, which just mean that democrat in purple state that have a chance of winning might get replaced by people who'll never win.

Does anyone see them as the heirs of the throne? They seem like just they are related to the throne. I don't run in those circles, but I don't hear people speak of Eric, JR, or Ivanka in the same reverent tone as Donald.

And to your re-election point... we're seeing a lot of stuff today. But ok. It's not enough. Let's say he doesn't get ousted. Historically, turnout for re-election is poor. But Trump messed up a lot of beds. Tariffs, Net Neutrality, "Good people on both sides", ICE, Betrayals on Medicare and Medicaid, (Once) Federally Protected Lands... Turn out is usually a lot lower because the President didn't do anything the first year. It's the "Let's not rock the boat so we can be re-elected" term.

Trump didn't just rock the boat, he turned it over, poured napalm on it, and said "I wouldn't have to do this if it wasn't for the Democrats". We bucked history with voting him in, I doubt we can count on history to predict the future. We have our first Transgender governor nominee Christine Hallquist. Our first Transsexual Lawmaker happened last year, The first Latina Lesbian Governor might be elected this year in TEXAS of all places.

Trump's reign has come with significant push back. We're seeing championing of anything that's anti his message. The cult might stay... let them. The rest of the nation is mobilizing. Will they be successful? That's another story. But they aren't being silent. That's step one.

The Republicans haven't had to justify anything since Obama's first days in office when they made it their agenda to oppose everything he did, and possibly even before that point - Obama's election was where they were most blatant about their shenanigans. What makes you think they'll have to - or even try to - justify anything they've let happen now?

Not now. After Trump is out.

They could just say they were against policies Obama put out because they were too socialist or too against American Policies. Now, they have to say that they were for ripping families apart, selling off our national parks and making them smaller, actually trying to get rid of medicare and medicaid even though a big contingent of Republican voters depend on it, and tariffs that are actually closing jobs and forcing american icons like Harley-Davidson to look else were.

No big bad Socialist at the helm there. Just Trump. And that's what they are going to have to justify once Trump leaves. The only sound that can be heard with the Vacuum caused by his lack of presence being... "Why did all this happen?"

Silentpony:He'll just tweet out "Terrible Democrats trying to steal this country, want me impeached. Most corrupt Congress in history. Not going anywhere. You and what army, Congress? #MAGA"

God, don't scare me like that.

But its a legit worry. Congress doesn't have an army. If they impeach Trump and he refuses to leave, what then? A new President will be sworn in, sure, but 80-90% of the Republican party won't recognize them as a legit President, and Trump will still be in the white house sending out tweets and giving orders that the GOP will continue to follow. What do you do when the man in the white house has basically gone renegade and one of the two major political parties goes renegade with him?

Silentpony:He'll just tweet out "Terrible Democrats trying to steal this country, want me impeached. Most corrupt Congress in history. Not going anywhere. You and what army, Congress? #MAGA"

God, don't scare me like that.

But its a legit worry. Congress doesn't have an army. If they impeach Trump and he refuses to leave, what then? A new President will be sworn in, sure, but 80-90% of the Republican party won't recognize them as a legit President, and Trump will still be in the white house sending out tweets and giving orders that the GOP will continue to follow. What do you do when the man in the white house has basically gone renegade and one of the two major political parties goes renegade with him?

Well then you have to ask if his bodyguard are ready to throw his life away for him... I'm thinking not. But there is a very serious risk that things will get ugly in some part of the country, they'll consider it a coup and will refuse to recognize him and it'll be the bird sanctuary all over again.

Silentpony:He'll just tweet out "Terrible Democrats trying to steal this country, want me impeached. Most corrupt Congress in history. Not going anywhere. You and what army, Congress? #MAGA"

God, don't scare me like that.

But its a legit worry. Congress doesn't have an army. If they impeach Trump and he refuses to leave, what then? A new President will be sworn in, sure, but 80-90% of the Republican party won't recognize them as a legit President, and Trump will still be in the white house sending out tweets and giving orders that the GOP will continue to follow. What do you do when the man in the white house has basically gone renegade and one of the two major political parties goes renegade with him?

In practice, if they actually do impeach Trump and he refuses to budge, he'd just get arrested. The impeachment means that he is no longer President, so the army doesn't have to obey his orders and would defer to the Secretary of Defence or whoever is next in line on the presidential succession list. In fact, neither he nor Congress could deploy the army into Washington; it's unconstitutional. He'd only be able to get away with it if he'd already dissolved the FBI and turned ICE into a militarised neo-Gestapo.

What worries me is that impeachment won't happen. It should be an easy decision; everybody hates Trump, he's shit at his job, he's drowning in scandals, and it could all get fixed just by firing him. But impeachment relies on public pressure, and frankly, outlets like Fox News have gotten way too good at manipulating public pressure. Trump's base is just invulnerable at the moment; they literally don't care that he cheated on his wife with a porn star while she was pregnant with their first child, or that he ran a fraudulent university to scam money out of vulnerable people, or that his charity was a giant tax scam, or that he's manifestly incapable of doing his job, or that he's actively fucking over the people who voted for him. Fox News tells them that it's all okay and the real victims are white South Africans being subjected to an imaginary genocide or some heinous shit like that, and they eat it up because they only consume shitty cable news and their standards fucking suck.

It's like a cult. I mean, it's scary. I hate to say it, but the organisation that is ultimately going to determine whether Trump gets impeached or not is gonna be Fox News. They're the guys with the finger on the button here; they're the ones who can actually chip away at Trump's approval rating. And if they keep playing defence for him instead, he'll never get impeached - you'll never be able to sway enough Republican senators to do it, not in time to avoid the 2020 election.

Honestly at this point I think the most likely scenario is that dem retake congress but not senate, try to impeach but can't without the senate and so the government become completely paralyzed and republican essentially run the next 2 year in constant campaign mode and blame the dem for the the whole mess (plus during that time Trump won't get to do anything and most skeleton in his closet will be out and long forgotten, so there won't be as much negative talk), and just enough people buy it for republican to get just enough vote to retake congress and keep Trump elected. Plus rep still control most state/SCOTUS so they'll push hard for anything that stop dem from voting.

But its worse than that. Trump is already in talks with Blackwater to be his second, personal security force, and their founder helped him get elected. So even if the Secret Service pulls out, his mercenaries don't.

Basically if the President is impeached and his cultists being to revolt, the military may back them. That if Trump told his followers to take to the street with their guns, what would the military do? The answer? Not sure. Which is a pretty damn scary answer.

Silentpony:But its worse than that. Trump is already in talks with Blackwater to be his second, personal security force, and their founder helped him get elected. So even if the Secret Service pulls out, his mercenaries don't.

Basically if the President is impeached and his cultists being to revolt, the military may back them. That if Trump told his followers to take to the street with their guns, what would the military do? The answer? Not sure. Which is a pretty damn scary answer.

I believe it's actually unconstitutional for the military to be deployed on US soil in a law enforcement capacity. What that means is that the real contest would be between federal law enforcement agencies.

What that means is, "is the FBI still around?" Because if the FBI still exists, and Trump pulls his "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever impeaches me bounces off and impeaches onto you" stunt, then the FBI would just arrest him. They have the legal jurisdiction to do that. Trump could order the military to stop them, but all that would really accomplish is to add another felony count to whatever he's already got on his slate; I doubt the military would obey, because a) he wouldn't be the President anymore and b) even if he was, they're not obliged to carry out an illegal order.

But if Trump dissolves the FBI - which he can hypothetically do at any time, the Bureau serves at his pleasure - then the question of jurisdiction goes up into the air. The doomsday scenario has Trump dissolving the FBI and purging the DoJ, and then expanding the portfolio of DHS - whose agencies, including ICE, are a lot more loyal to Trump than the FBI is right now - to encompass broader domestic law enforcement duties. And if that happens, it's basically over. He's won. The same law that stops him from ordering the military to arrest Congress also stops Congress from ordering the military to arrest him. And if he has physical control of Capitol Hill and the politicians inside, then in practical terms it's just a matter of pistol-whipping them until they pass a piece of straw legislation un-impeaching him and retroactively legalising his coup.

But that's the doomsday scenario. That would require Trump to gain several levels of competence and intelligence overnight, and for the entire country to somehow be okay with him dissolving its primarily federal law enforcement agency while said agency is actively investigating him to see whether he's committed a crime. I don't think it'll get that bad. Frankly, I don't think Trump has the stones. He's a coward, deep down; a con artist, not a fanatic.

I don't disagree that Trump is a complete and utter coward, but I do worry about his enablers. Trump said he put his business in a blind trust, and he didn't. That's a violation of the emoluments clause. Republicans didn't do anything. Trump banned Muslims. The Courts stepped in yes, but Congress didn't. Trump started illegally putting kids in cages at the border. Congress didn't do anything. Trump gave classified intelligence to the Russians in the Oval Office. Congress didn't do anything. Trump admitted on live TV he paid off Stormy Daniels to win the election. Congress didn't do anything. Trump fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation. Congress specifically looked the other way. Trump is on the war-path revoking security clearances of former officials he doesn't like. Congress didn't do anything.

Just saying everything Trump has wanted to do he's gotten away with. He may not be smart enough to dissolve the FBI, but if he does I worry Congress wouldn't do anything.

bastardofmelbourne:I believe it's actually unconstitutional for the military to be deployed on US soil in a law enforcement capacity.

Not so much, unfortunately. It was limited by statute in 1878 not to occur without the consent of Congress, though.

Oh, okay. For some reason I thought it was a constitutional amendment.

In that case, our hypothetical swings even more heavily in the favour of Congress, because Congress could just direct the military to remove Trump from office.

Saelune:So, Trump uses his PERSONAL TWITTER for uh...'President stuff', and would that not mean he has a PERSONAL EMAIL tied to that PERSONAL TWITTER?

Just saying, thats another for 'I blame others for bad things I do'

Well, the issue with federal officials using a personal email account for government business was twofold; firstly, a personal email account could be more vulnerable than a government account, which might mean that confidential information might get passed through insecure channels. Secondly, there's the worry that the official might be using the personal email account for communications that they do not want recorded or scrutinised - this is a big problem, because the federal government is required by law to preserve evidence of official communications for posterity and oversight.

The first reason, that definitely applies to Trump. Not really because of any vulnerabilities in Twitter, but because his Twitter habit means that he makes very regular use of a smartphone that isn't very secure at all, because he considers the security measures - which require regularly checking and replacing the phone and limiting the phone's functionality - to be too inconvenient. A compromised smartphone is essentially a multi-purpose surveillance device; not only will it track your text messages, emails and browser history, but it's also basically an always-on audio and video recording device. This is why cybersecurity experts flipped their shit when they saw Trump using an assistant's smartphone flashlight to read confidential documents about North Korea during an impromptu security briefing at Mar-a-Lago.

Now, the second thing, that's also a problem with Trump, but not for the same reasons as it was with Clinton. With Clinton, there was a suspicion from the Republicans that she was using her personal email server to conceal sensitive or incriminating communications. This reached a height during the Benghazi hearings, when the running theory was that Clinton's email server contained a treasure trove of dirty laundry that she tried to conceal to cover her ass. This was never proven, but it's the origin of the regularly-cited "30,000 missing emails" that Trump claims Clinton had "acid-washed", which is a goddamn nonsensical accusation, but whatever. Trump keeps bringing that up, constantly, because really the only excuse Clinton could give is that they were personal in nature and she wanted to keep them private - which, to a sufficiently suspicious person, is no excuse at all.

The problem with Trump criticising Clinton for her document retention policy is that Trump's own document retention policy is hilariously suspicious. Trump is in the habit of tearing up any piece of paper he's done reading, a "filing system" that he no doubt adopted as a shady real estate developer in the 70s and 80s. That's incredibly illegal, and there's actually a battalion of analysts working overtime to fish the pieces out of the trash and literally tape them back together so that they can be properly preserved, as is required by law.

Trump is also infamously secretive by nature; he's never released his tax returns, he'd die before he lets someone look at his medical records, he flips out if you even suggest the possibility of verifying his net worth, and he forces almost everyone he interacts with to sign an NDA - current and former employees, ghostwriters, TV producers, White House staff, BFFs, litigants, mistresses, and even his ex-wives. And prior to taking the presidency, he had a habit of tossing defamation lawsuits at people like paper planes. The point being; no matter which way you cut it, seeing Trump accuse Clinton of being secretive is like watching a rat accuse a weasel of looking shifty. It's a real pot-to-kettle situation.

But about Twitter specifically - there's nothing inherently wrong with a President using Twitter. There's phone security concerns like I described above, there's a worry he might accidentally blurt out classified information, and there's a worry that his tweets might be interpreted as official statements about foreign or domestic policy. But the fundamental problem isn't Twitter; it's self-discipline. Trump has very little self-discipline, a colossal ego, and tremendous insecurities about his wealth and privacy. He's going to be a security risk whether or not he has access to Twitter. You're only gonna stop it if you literally muzzle him.

And as time goes on, we just keep hearing of more and more federal officials who used their personal email for official business. James Comey got caught doing it, for Christ's sake. It may well be a problem, but it certainly wasn't limited to Clinton, and it sure as fuck hasn't been solved since then.

bastardofmelbourne:In that case, our hypothetical swings even more heavily in the favour of Congress, because Congress could just direct the military to remove Trump from office.

More likely than not, it would actually be the US Marshals as a finding for removal by the senate would technically be reduced to an order by the chief justice, and the Marshals, as the executors of Federal arrest warrants, are likely to be the means of physically removing the president from the White House if needed.

So, we're questioning the citizenship of people born in a region in which there were a substantial number of midwives and doctors who admitted to filing false birth certificates claiming that people born in Mexico were actually born in the US, requiring that they provide alternative documentation to back it up?

That seems to be fairly different than "declaring anyone he wants an illegal immigrant." I suppose the follow up question is what is the proper due process for determining if someone is actually an illegal immigrant when there is suspicion of a false birth certificate (in this case admission by the people submitting the birth certificates that they falsified many of them in that area in that time period)?

So, we're questioning the citizenship of people born in a region in which there were a substantial number of midwives and doctors who admitted to filing false birth certificates claiming that people born in Mexico were actually born in the US, requiring that they provide alternative documentation to back it up?

That seems to be fairly different than "declaring anyone he wants an illegal immigrant." I suppose the follow up question is what is the proper due process for determining if someone is actually an illegal immigrant when there is suspicion of a false birth certificate (in this case admission by the people submitting the birth certificates that they falsified many of them in that area in that time period)?

First they came for the Muslims, but I did not speak up cause I was not a Muslim.

Then they came for the immigrants, but I did not speak up because I was not an immigrant.

Then they came for the people who looked like immigrants, but I did not speak up because I did not look like an immigrant...

Because God forbid Congress actually has to do some work for once. Look at the damn list.

Axios:- President Trump's tax returns- Trump family businesses - and whether they comply with the Constitution's emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization- Trump's dealings with Russia, including the president's preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin- The payment to Stephanie Clifford - a.k.a. Stormy Daniels- James Comey's firing- Trump's firing of U.S. attorneys- Trump's proposed transgender ban for the military- Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's business dealings- White House staff's personal email use- Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks- Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago- Jared Kushner's ethics law compliance- Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors- The travel ban- Family separation policy- Hurricane response in Puerto Rico- Election security and hacking attempts- White House security clearances

It's like a giant pile of homework that Republicans have been ignoring all semester.

I was more talking about the regular conservatives. Those who complained that the government is a swamp and proceeded to elect those who decided instead of draining the swamp, let's just expand it nation-wide. People like you and me. Republicans, Right Wing, The 'Woke'... which really sounds like a great gimmick of a new Wrestling Faction. I haven't been into Wrestling since I was 12, but if the 'Yoked Woke' started performing, I'd probably have to take a gander.

Where was I?

Oh, yeah, Republicans, Right Wing, The Woke, The Individualist who define themselves by pointing out all the problems with Democrats who hypocritically allow these things to happen just because it 'benefits' them. It's like ignoring a family member being beat up by your group of friends because it would be somehow worse if they were beat up by strangers...

Because God forbid Congress actually has to do some work for once. Look at the damn list.

Axios:- President Trump's tax returns- Trump family businesses - and whether they comply with the Constitution's emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization- Trump's dealings with Russia, including the president's preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin- The payment to Stephanie Clifford - a.k.a. Stormy Daniels- James Comey's firing- Trump's firing of U.S. attorneys- Trump's proposed transgender ban for the military- Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's business dealings- White House staff's personal email use- Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks- Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago- Jared Kushner's ethics law compliance- Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors- The travel ban- Family separation policy- Hurricane response in Puerto Rico- Election security and hacking attempts- White House security clearances

It's like a giant pile of homework that Republicans have been ignoring all semester.

I was more talking about the regular conservatives. Those who complained that the government is a swamp and proceeded to elect those who decided instead of draining the swamp, let's just expand it nation-wide. People like you and me. Republicans, Right Wing, The 'Woke'... which really sounds like a great gimmick of a new Wrestling Faction. I haven't been into Wrestling since I was 12, but if the 'Yoked Woke' started performing, I'd probably have to take a gander.

Where was I?

Oh, yeah, Republicans, Right Wing, The Woke, The Individualist who define themselves by pointing out all the problems with Democrats who hypocritically allow these things to happen just because it 'benefits' them. It's like ignoring a family member being beat up by your group of friends because it would be somehow worse if they were beat up by strangers...

What 'regular conservatives'? There is no alt-right, cause that explicitly says they are alternative to something. The alt right = Mainstream right.

Obama wasn't universally popular, and corporate democrats shied away from him and tried to separate themselves from his name.

Republicans openly block all of these serious issues... and I hear no Republicans speak about these issues in their party.

Why?

Because if they lose now they'll never get this close to power again, there base is dying up, last election they did a big "soul searching" and realize that unless they broaden there base they'll never be able to get elected again... then Trump won. Everything that's wrong with Trump now is stuff we knew during the election, yet they didn't do anything to prevent it. If they start doing it now the obvious question will be why they didn't back then or during the last two years. They'd lose face with Trump base and everybody else would never forgive them, electoral suicide. There last card is to double down on Trump base, cosy up to him and prevent everybody else from voting as much as possible, little step at a time.

''Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department,'' he said on Twitter. ''Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time.''

''Good job Jeff......''The tweet on Sessions was an unusually harsh salvo, even for a president who sometimes expresses his thoughts on Twitter to the chagrin of his staff. The tweet indicated that his attorney general should base law enforcement actions on how it could affect the president and the Republican Party's electoral success. It also seemed to indicate that electoral popularity should influence charges....''Repeatedly trying to pervert DOJ into a weapon to go after his adversaries, and now shamelessly complaining that DOJ should protect his political allies to maintain his majority in the midterms, is nothing short of an all-out assault on the rule of law,'' former deputy attorney general Sally Yates said in a statement Monday.